Saddam Hussein would be found guilty by any court in the civilized world of horrific crimes against his “own” and neighboring peoples. Are Iraqis better off without him? The great majority of them undoubtedly welcomed his ouster, but there can be even less doubt of the outcome if Iraqis were asked, “Which existence would you prefer, that of 2002 under Saddam, or that of 2006 under Bush?” 98 to 2, maybe?

Saddam is presently on trial for his genocidal campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq in 1988, during the final months of the Iran-Iraq War. Some 182,000 died in the campaign known as Anfal. Throughout the war, Saddam had a staunch ally in U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who dropped sanctions against the “state sponsor of terrorism”. European and American companies, including Dow Chemical and DuPont, profited from sales of technology and materials for biological, chemical, and conventional weapons.

Reagan’s vice-president, George H. W. Bush, had charge of the Iraq desk. As stories of horrific gassings began to emerge in 1984, the US formally “censured” Iraq but at the same time dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to assure Hussein that its support for his war and for the normalisation of diplomatic relations was “undiminished”. The Commerce Department continued to approve sales of things like anthrax, and Iraqi scientists were invited to conferences on nuclear weapons technology.

Anfal could not have been such an outstanding “success” without satellite photos of potential targets provided by the U.S., and the massive disinformation campaign mounted by the U.S., based on the crude lie that Iran also used chemical weapons.

An insightful overview of this subject, by Joost Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch, is available at http://www.merip.org/mero/mero011805.html. The names of the 24 American corporations and their dealings with Iraq were first revealed by Andreas Zumach in "Die Tageszeitung", based on the 8,000 pages that Bush attempted to expunge from the official document submitted by Iraq to the U.N. in December 2002.

Bush is taking a calculated risk in putting Saddam Hussein on trial for the Anfal war crimes. Apparently he is confident that he can simply “pull the plug” if Saddam tries to bring up U.S. complicity. Perhaps this is why, for the second time in two trials, the presiding judge has been removed.

These removals alone constitute rather irrefutable proof that Saddam’s trials are occurring in a kangaroo court. The Iraqi victims certainly aren’t served by the show trials, and no competent observer anywhere, outside the Green Zone or Washington, takes them seriously.

To convince the world that true justice is being done, and to give the Iraqi people a hope for closure, the trials should be moved to a neutral country, say the Netherlands, at The Hague. But to accomplish the goals of justice and closure, room will have to be made alongside Saddam in the dock for George H.W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and their surviving accomplices, many of whom still occupy positions of power in the White House.

Saddam is on trial for the mass murder of up to 200,000 of his countrymen. A recent study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and published in "The Lancet" estimates that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of Bush Junior’s illegal war. Surely, we’ll need another courtroom at The Hague to try him and his accomplices. Whatever Saddam gets goes three-fold for them, no?

Don’t forget to tune in to KSKA on Wednesday at 7:00p Alaska Daylight Time for our little debate. That’s 11:00p Eastern, 8:00p Pacific, 0300 Thu. GMT (0400 London time) and 0700 Baghdad time, unless you folks have already turned back your clocks.

Hang in there, Baghdadis. I’ll try to send a small ray of hope.

So, Mr. Ratigan, is the world a better, safer place with Saddam Hussein removed from power?

Before going into my (current) final answer to the question, let me recount a story from an interview I did in August with Mike Mason of radio station KBBI in Homer. As far as I know, none of this interview was ever aired.

Mr. Mason said, “Let’s talk about mass murder.” My ears pricked up. Now we’re getting down to it. Mason continued: “Saddam is accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Have you seen the tape where several people are sentenced to death by Saddam and removed from the courtroom? Moments later, gunshots are heard.” I confessed that I had not seen this tape, but Mike assured me that he had, and he could vouch for its authenticity. He then asked, “Didn’t the U.S. have a responsibility to remove this mass murderer?”

[In July of 2004, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that shortly before assuming power as “Interim Prime Minister”, Iyad Allawi had personally shot and killed six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station. Though firing at point-blank range, a seventh man survived. The story was reported by one of Australia’s most respected journalists, Paul McGough. It concludes:
“US officials in Iraq have not made an outright denial of the allegations. An emailed response to questions from the Herald to the US ambassador, John Negroponte, said: ‘If we attempted to refute each [rumour], we would have no time for other business. As far as this embassy's press office is concerned, this case is closed.’”
Links to the original story and an interview with McGough by Australian Broadcasting can be found in the Wikipedia articles on Allawi or the Iraq Interim Government. I strongly urge readers to check them out.
This is not a digression: Allawi, who planned terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians while on the CIA payroll in the 1990’s, is now the leading candidate to become dictator following the upcoming coup, which I predict will be shortly after (or before?) November 7th. The gloves will come off then: no more silly talk of Iraq as "a beacon for democracy in the Middle East".]

My answer to Mike Mason went like this: “I am certainly not going to defend Saddam Hussein or attempt to prevent the Iraqi people from obtaining justice, but remember that during the 1980’s, when many of the atrocities took place, he had the full backing of the Republican administrations in Washington, which also gave him the green light for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990; that over 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions during the Clinton years; and that over 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the current war and occupation. I agree that we must bring mass murderers to justice, but our first responsibility is to deal with the mass murderers in our own country.”

I wondered at the time if my answer might have been a bit too strong for Mike Mason's or KBBI's stomach. I'm relying on memory here, but they can clarify the exact language used by simply airing the interview, or this portion of it.

My answer to the question at the top will be the subject of my next post.

Thanks to everyone for the encouraging words in the comments section and in personal letters. The positive reinforcement is important to me. I also wish to thank everyone who has supported the campaign, with special thanks to those who have contributed financially. It’s been a humbling experience. My first contribution came from the Juneau Pro-Choice Alliance, whose small check was less important than their endorsement (with highest marks).
Thanks again. I’m never so “high” that I can’t use a shot in the arm.

The debate this Wednesday on the show “Running” will be available on-line from the Anchorage public radio station KSKA: http://kska.org/kska-listen.html. I don't know if other public radio or TV stations will carry it, so outside the Anchorage area you’ll have to go on-line, at least to hear it live. I’m listening to them right now, loud and clear. Get your friends around the computer and tune in. I predict that sparks will fly!

The Department of Defense has a service where military personnel, or anyone else, can call to listen to statements recorded by the various candidates. After overcoming some technical glitches, I got something recorded yesterday, and it’s available now. There was one rather serious slip (I said “top military leaders” when I meant to say “top military lawyers”) so I redid it today, but it may not get posted till next week. All in all, I was reasonably pleased with it. My opening statement on Wednesday will pretty much repeat the first minute, while my closing statement will differ a bit from the second minute. The number is: 800-438-8683. You’ll have to navigate a sea of prompts (to get started, the first two are “1”). When you get to the Alaska House race (District “1”) I am “03”, Independent. Then hit “01”. Good luck! Anyhow, it’s free. Check it out!
The only other candidates you can hear are the Green and the Libertarian. Benson and Young have not participated, last time I checked.

Speaking of our top military leaders, our inspirational quote for the day is from Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on his boss Donald Rumsfeld:

“He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country.”

It is said that Rumsfeld cannot tolerate criticism and his "advisors" say "yes" only when spoken to. So…in a cesspool, what rises to the top?

I also get to prepare answers to possible questions. Whether the questions – or answers – ever get stated in a public forum is not terribly relevant. Inquiring minds will just have to read this blog.

Q: So, Ratigan, you’re a Bolshevik (or Communist or Socialist), right?

A: Let me respond by first outlining some of my positions.

I agree with the Libertarians on many things: that government has no business in our personal lives, and decisions about abortion, sexual partners, etc., should be left up to the individual; that democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution and 800 years of legal tradition, such as habeas corpus, must be protected; and that we have no business fighting costly and brutal wars to make the world safe for ExxonMobil and Halliburton.

However, the Libertarians would like to eliminate government altogether. To them, municipal garbage collection and public parks represent creeping socialism. I believe that our capitalist system has proven itself to be utterly incapable of solving fundamental social problems, such as racial and class discrimination in public education and the unavailability of health care for a huge segment of the population.

I believe that our entire society, the whole social organism, must work together for the social needs of all. If such an approach defines socialism, then, yes, I’m proud to proclaim myself a socialist.

I received a private comment to my last post from “Blackbird” in which he wondered what my last question was. True, it failed the Alex Trebek test, but I was just putting out the gist of the argument. Blackbird suggested that the question might center on cutbacks in veteran health care, disability pensions, etc. That’s an excellent idea, and I know Don Young has been involved in the “privatization” (read “slashing”) of veteran benefits. I haven’t found the facts though, and I solicit the help of readers.

Another approach is just to lay out the raw numbers on post traumatic stress disorder, major depression, and severe anxiety. These numbers are hard to come by as well, but I’ve seen 17% to 31% for army and marine personnel, and a “considerably higher” rate among National Guard and Reserves. This last is understandable when one considers that members of the Guard and Reserves tend to be older, more likely to have children – even grandchildren – and so are more sensitive to the brutalization of families, etc. In fact, this is precisely why the Army prefers young men and women, whether as volunteers or draftees. Thanks to Red Wood for the excellent link on some disheartening numbers.

Given that our forces are being sent into an absolutely insane situation, what’s amazing is that any come home mentally whole.

In cruising the Internet I came up with another angle: at least 100 family members have been murdered by returning veterans, not counting the suicides. Once again the official line is that the exact number is impossible to determine! (How preposterous is that?) Anyhow, there are probably several hundred children who will grow up without one or both parents. This one, in its raw form, may be too nasty for prime time.

To conclude for now: all this will probably come up in the rebuttal phase – one minute! – where it’s still a good idea to finish with a question. As for the opening jab, well, you may just have to tune in.

The “debate” takes place next Wednesday (25 Oct) on public TV and radio in Anchorage. The candidates for Congress (all five) will be on from 7:00 pm to 7:48 pm, local time. It should be carried around the state, and I’m sure it will be available on-line. More on that later.
Each candidate makes an opening statement and a closing statement of one minute each. I have to try to condense my worldview – the speech I’ve been planning all my life – into two one minute segments! Oh well, if this lousy tooth can hang on, we’ll have some fun.
In between, there are questions and answers. The moderator gets one round and then the candidates take over, for one or more rounds. The format there is you choose a candidate, ask him/her a question in thirty seconds, there’s one minute to answer, one minute for rebuttal, and thirty seconds to respond.
If all goes well, and the host is reasonably unobtrusive, I’ll get two questions. Naturally, Don Young is the Man.
I have several “candidate questions”, and I’ll mention three here. I invite audience participation, on this and general strategy. One thing I’ve already discovered is that the initial question, especially given its limited time, should be a jab. Save the haymaker for the minute and leave him clinging to the ropes in the final thirty.

My first brainstorm went like this: “Last month, the American Embassy in Damascus was attacked by terrorists. The attack was repulsed by Syrian forces, but suppose it had succeeded, and suppose that President Bush had declared, “That’s it, we have to take out this regime that harbors terrorists,” and he had called a joint session of Congress to get approval to attack Syria. How would you have voted?”
I thought this was quite brilliant, and I even planned to keep it under wraps to ensure the element of surprise, but examining it in the cold light of day I find it seriously deficient because of its too speculative nature. (Perry Mason: “It calls for speculation on the part of the witness.”) So, while it may be brilliant and a tough one for Don Young – it challenges the whole foundation of the bogus “war on terror” – it would probably go over the heads of much of the audience. “Focus, Bill. Meat and potatoes.”

I will just outline my other two ideas, which I think are much better. I’m not worried about Don getting advance warning, since I don’t think it would help much, and I doubt any of his people bother to scout the opposition anyway.
The first would be on the Military Commissions Act, highlighting the fact that the military’s top lawyers, the judge advocates general, all vigorously opposed the law. “Why did the Republicans, including Don Young, reject this unanimous legal advice?”

The second question also deals with military. Beyond the 2800 servicemen killed and 20,000 plus wounded (the rate for both accelerates practically daily) there are tens of thousands who suffer from serious mental illness, many of whom are undiagnosed and discharged into society without help. Others are given prescriptions for Zoloft, Prozac, etc. and returned to the front lines. Of course, no self-respecting psychiatrist with an ounce of medical ethics would approve this treatment, but the Army Medical Corps also finds doctors to help in its torture program.